THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[songsmith]

Strict Constitutionalist view of 2nd amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
a free State,

This preamble explains the scope of and the reason for the amendment. "State" refers to any of the several states and, presently, Federal law defines "Militia" as:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

According to law, militia is NOT limited to National Guard.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.

Since it specifies "the people", this phrase prohibits all governments within the United States from making any law prohibiting its citizens from keeping arms on their person.

It does NOT grant Congress any right to regulate or prohibit arms whatsoever.

I'm not sure at what point I personally limited militia to the National Guard, though I did in fact say that militias are no longer necessary. The National Guard, directed by state governors, renders torch-and-pitchfork militias unnecessary. (As an aside, militias will be all the rage in about a year. )
Nor did I specify that the Second Amendment grant Congress the right to prohibit anything, only that the intent and focus changed from that of a declaration of the right of a people to rise up against the government, to a statement that individuals have a right to carry a weapon for any reason they want, anywhere they want.

How are you on the 14th Amendment? You must believe that if an illegal immigrant comes here and gives birth, that child is a US citizen, subject to the rights and privileges accorded US citizens (as well as the repsonsibilities, we may touch on that later). Right?
And the 4th Amendment? Is race probable cause for stopping brown people in Arizona? Doesn't that same amount of probable cause entitle government law agents to stop YOU?

I know, I know. Too many questions, I have to learn to toe your line and jump through your hoops 'cause you don't want to have to think too hard, but... give it a shot.

Who said my post was about YOU? Not everything is about YOU. As a matter of fact, very, very few things are about YOU.

You asked for a Constitutionalist's view on the 2nd amendment and you got it. Anything more than I put would just be supportive or redundant.

"According to law, militia is NOT limited to National Guard."
That wasn't a quote from your source article, that was you. It would insinuate that my point limits the definition of militia to National Guard, we both know that's what you were going for. I never made a statement contrary, but you "corrected" it anyway. You also appear to "correct" me by pointing out that "It does NOT grant Congress any right to regulate or prohibit arms whatsoever," despite the fact that I never said Congress regulates or prohibits firearms. I can only speculate, but it's very much like a talkshow conservative to preempt any discussion of the matter with an impromptu civics lesson, lest I attempt to define things differently . We can't have that, can we? My point was the difference in the perceived scope of the 2nd Amendment, how it's now seen as a completely different message, a point you never actually approached. But hey, it's not about me. You were validating your own textualist beliefs. Any time you're asked a question, however rhetorical or open, you respond with your version of "How It Is." The Supreme Court is unneccessary in your eyes, because you are The Definer.
It's about you.

[lonewolf]

My point was the difference in the perceived scope of the 2nd Amendment, how it's now seen as a completely different message, a point you never actually approached.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Unless it is amended, this is still the text in the Constitution. It is a very simple, unambiguous statement and even the most liberal of opinions does not change it. The words STATE and MILITIA are capitalized to be so specific as to not leave any room for interpretation. I don't see how it can mean anything else besides what it says.

Even when sheeple decide that we don't need a Militia because we are secure in the blanket of the federal government, it is still the law of the land. IMO, that kind of false security only amplifies the need to preserve this amendment as written.

[f.sciarrillo]

Jon Huntsman bailed out today. He is also backing Romney. Maybe Romney will pick him as a running mate?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/16/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_c1

[lonewolf]

You also appear to "correct" me by pointing out that "It does NOT grant Congress any right to regulate or prohibit arms whatsoever," despite the fact that I never said Congress regulates or prohibits firearms.

Um, no. In the preamble, it contains the phrase "well regulated Militia".

This is often misconstrued to mean regulation as in rules and regulations.

When used in the context of militia, "well regulated" means well-armed, well-equipped and well drilled at using it. The idea was that rather than spending a great deal of time and treasury on a standing army and formal militia training, they could more heavily rely on a self-equipped Militia for defense against enemies, foreign or domestic. In this sense, the amendment calls for "the people to keep and bear" the highest level of arms possible. Back then, that meant a flintlock and a knife. A few 1%ers might have cannon. Today, that translates to stuff like assault rifles and automatic weapons. A cannon in the front yard would be nice.

Ironically, the very Supreme Court decision that upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934 cited that the short barreled shotgun in question was not considered a military weapon and therefore was not covered under the 2nd amendment. Since the defendants skipped bail, the defense attorney did not show up for the hearing and nobody was there to contest this assertion by the plaintiff. Along with arguing that whole premise, short barrel shotguns were in fact used by the military and could have easily been proven to be a military use weapon. Imagine how things would be had that attorney showed up! Automatic weapons would be legal and we would have very few gun control laws.

Hamilton explains his wording of this amendment in Federalist Papers #29:

“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. “But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.’’

[songsmith]

Um, no. In the preamble, it contains the phrase "well regulated Militia".

This is often misconstrued to mean regulation as in rules and regulations.

When used in the context of militia, "well regulated" means well-armed, well-equipped and well drilled at using it.

Nice try, but no.
"Well-regulated" means well-regulated. By the state in question. Vigilantism by disorganized roving bands of armed thugs is anarchy, which isn't exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind for governance. Your assessment is more than simply incorrect, it's the polar opposite of the intent of the framers of the Constitution of a UNITED States. Individuals and small groups were not invited to overthrow the govt, but states could mount a militia, the FedGov is barred from stopping that. Checks and balances, Jeff.
At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, no gun laws were even necessary. They were a fairly poor defensive weapon. If you missed with your first shot, you were an easy target given away by a cloud of smoke. If your powder was wet or fouled, if your flint didn't spark, if your target was more than 50 yards away... you were now a sitting duck for your opponent's gun. Guns were mostly tools for survival, which is why there's no amendment for axes or knives. Only in groups were they effective. Guns didn't become their current handful of power over life or death until the Civil War. Now they simply represent the bearer's ability to take the life of the person they're pointed at... a way for insecure people to have power over other individuals. There are few other explanations for "collectors" hoarding hundreds of guns, or having an assault rifle at home. To wit, the very people who screech the loudest about their guns are the very same people who attempt to enforce their "values" and "morals" on me.
"Well-regulated" means regulated by a democratic government, not fat white retards playing army. Ask the Hutaree, or anyone who hung out with Timothy McVeigh. The White Power guys play army all the time, that doesn't make it legal.

[songsmith]

Georgia State Rep. Kip Smith charged with DUI. The sponsor of Georgia HB 464, which would drug-test welfare recipients.

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/state-r ... 02153.html

Apparently, substance-abuse problems aren't limited to welfare recipients. Physician, heal thyself.

[lonewolf]

Um, no. In the preamble, it contains the phrase "well regulated Militia".

This is often misconstrued to mean regulation as in rules and regulations.

When used in the context of militia, "well regulated" means well-armed, well-equipped and well drilled at using it.

Nice try, but no.
"Well-regulated" means well-regulated. By the state in question.

Bullshit, ask Madison. Read the Supreme Court's interpretation in US v. Miller:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 74_ZO.html

And again with District Of Columbia v. Heller:

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[113] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[114] Regarding a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29:

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[47]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Please direct all arguments and rants regarding this to:

Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

[lonewolf]

Georgia State Rep. Kip Smith charged with DUI. The sponsor of Georgia HB 464, which would drug-test welfare recipients.

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/state-r ... 02153.html

Apparently, substance-abuse problems aren't limited to welfare recipients. Physician, heal thyself.

Ah...another Pillsbury Dough Boy like we have. Perhaps drug testing will be a part of his probation?

[songsmith]

I don't know... they only got DOUBLE the amount of signatures needed. That's not gonna be enough for the joes.
Maybe voter suppression and union-busting were a bad idea, Scott!


http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ ... l-election

[f.sciarrillo]

obama is the foodstamp president?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html

[lonewolf]

obama is the foodstamp president?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html

LBJ is the foodstamp president...it just took this long for the "Great Society" to come into fruition.

[f.sciarrillo]

obama is the foodstamp president?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html

LBJ is the foodstamp president...it just took this long for the "Great Society" to come into fruition.

Yeah, LBJ is the one who started it. But there are a lot of people on it with Obama in office.

With LbJ there were 350,000 people on food stamps. Last year, with Obama, there was 44 million people on food stamps. All those jobs he created must be helping.

I am looking to see what the stats were with Bush, so I can be fair and balances.

[edit]

I looked and found that the new number is a record. Way to go Obama!

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/news/ec ... od_stamps/

[/edit]

[lonewolf]

As I mentioned on FB: LBJ planted the seed, Obama is just tending the tree that grew from it.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[f.sciarrillo]

Cnn is reporting that Perry is dropping out of the race.

[songsmith]

All those jobs he created must be helping.

I am looking to see what the stats were with Bush, so I can be fair and balances.

I'll point out 2 things:

You fellers need to figure out once and for all whether government creates jobs or not. You're always flip-flopping on Obama not creating jobs vs. Obama's over-regulation not allowing business to create jobs. Meanwhile, the jobs all went overseas during the Bush administration, and we've had nearly 3 years of growth under Big Bad O.
The other point is that all the foodstamps wouldn't be necessary if the rightwing hadn't allowed Wall St. and the rest of Big Business to destroy the world economy. Once again, you're setting the apartment building on fire, then bitching about the homeless problem.

[f.sciarrillo]

All those jobs he created must be helping.

I am looking to see what the stats were with Bush, so I can be fair and balances.

I'll point out 2 things:

You fellers need to figure out once and for all whether government creates jobs or not. You're always flip-flopping on Obama not creating jobs vs. Obama's over-regulation not allowing business to create jobs. Meanwhile, the jobs all went overseas during the Bush administration, and we've had nearly 3 years of growth under Big Bad O.
The other point is that all the foodstamps wouldn't be necessary if the rightwing hadn't allowed Wall St. and the rest of Big Business to destroy the world economy. Once again, you're setting the apartment building on fire, then bitching about the homeless problem.

It still doesn't negate the fact that there are a record number of people on food stamps on Obama's watch. He promised hope and change, where is it?

And he can help create jobs. Vetoing the pipe line yesterday killed the potential for thousands of them. Even his advisors told him he was stupid for doing it.

[lonewolf]

All those jobs he created must be helping.

I am looking to see what the stats were with Bush, so I can be fair and balances.

Meanwhile, the jobs all went overseas during the Bush administration, and we've had nearly 3 years of growth under Big Bad O.

Yes, well sharp recessions do that. GDP goes down so far that there is nowhere to go but up. This is one of the lamest recoveries on record.

I would rather they didn't call the end of a recession until GDP matched the GDP before the recession. It would be closer to reality. If not change it, at least come up with a new term for that condition.

I am a firm believer that there are extremely few things that government can do to help with jobs and the economy, but there are an infinite number of ways it can fuck them up.

After all, none of these politicians are interested in doing the correct thing...they only want to do the politically expedient thing that will get them re-elected.

Remember: Because we Americans have become spoiled, whiny little bitches, politicians can't buy votes without supporting spending programs of some kind or another. Even Dr. Paul has accepted this inconvenient fact.

[f.sciarrillo]

All those jobs he created must be helping.

I am looking to see what the stats were with Bush, so I can be fair and balances.

I'll point out 2 things:

You fellers need to figure out once and for all whether government creates jobs or not. You're always flip-flopping on Obama not creating jobs vs. Obama's over-regulation not allowing business to create jobs. Meanwhile, the jobs all went overseas during the Bush administration, and we've had nearly 3 years of growth under Big Bad O.
The other point is that all the foodstamps wouldn't be necessary if the rightwing hadn't allowed Wall St. and the rest of Big Business to destroy the world economy. Once again, you're setting the apartment building on fire, then bitching about the homeless problem.

It still doesn't negate the fact that there are a record number of people on food stamps on Obama's watch. He promised hope and change, where is it?

And he can help create jobs. Vetoing the pipe line yesterday killed the potential for thousands of them. Even his advisors told him he was stupid for doing it.

And last, if we had three years of growth under obama, there wouldn't be 44 million people on food stamps. Unless the growth was nothing but low paying wal*mart jobs.

[Hawk]

I'll point out 2 things:

You fellers need to figure out once and for all whether government creates jobs or not. You're always flip-flopping on Obama not creating jobs vs. Obama's over-regulation not allowing business to create jobs. Meanwhile, the jobs all went overseas during the Bush administration, and we've had nearly 3 years of growth under Big Bad O.
The other point is that all the food stamps wouldn't be necessary if the rightwing hadn't allowed Wall St. and the rest of Big Business to destroy the world economy. Once again, you're setting the apartment building on fire, then bitching about the homeless problem.

It still doesn't negate the fact that there are a record number of people on food stamps on Obama's watch. He promised hope and change, where is it?

And he can help create jobs. Vetoing the pipe line yesterday killed the potential for thousands of them. Even his advisors told him he was stupid for doing it.

And last, if we had three years of growth under obama, there wouldn't be 44 million people on food stamps. Unless the growth was nothing but low paying wal*mart jobs.

Think of the one percenters (the job creators with tax cuts who need more tax cuts ) while they are sitting on nearly two trillion dollars . If they paid a decent wage we could eliminate food stamps, get some people off welfare, jump start the economy have more taxable income, pay down the national debt, eventually run the government with a surplus. Explain why that's Obama's fault . Thanks.

It took GW EIGHT years to destroy the economy. You want Rome rebuilt in three years ?

[Banned]

What is your fair wage? BTW, another record for Obama. New home construction for 2011 at a record low, just another measure of Obama's Depression.

[lonewolf]

Wages and jobs aren't coming back until consumers start buying things again. The American people have enough sense to know when they borrowed too much and are paying down debt. Once that gets to equilibrium, perhaps the consumer will make a comeback and so will jobs and wages. I seriously doubt that conspicuous consumption will hit previous levels for a very long time. This will result in an extended period of not so spectacular growth.

Meanwhile, the government is doing the exact opposite and are feeding the next big financial crisis: the debt. The great irony of a consumer comeback is that at some point, the federal reserve will have to raise interest rates at least back to normal levels. In the absence of a balanced budget, the interest on the debt will mushroom to near $2 trillion, causing a fiscal crisis even worse than the last one that they caused with their infernal push of sub-prime mortgages.

It took 8 years to go from bubble to bubble last time. I suspect that this will be an even shorter interval. Things will continue to appear peachy until that day when the fed starts hiking interest rates back to normal.

[f.sciarrillo]

It still doesn't negate the fact that there are a record number of people on food stamps on Obama's watch. He promised hope and change, where is it?

And he can help create jobs. Vetoing the pipe line yesterday killed the potential for thousands of them. Even his advisors told him he was stupid for doing it.

And last, if we had three years of growth under obama, there wouldn't be 44 million people on food stamps. Unless the growth was nothing but low paying wal*mart jobs.

Think of the one percenters (the job creators with tax cuts who need more tax cuts ) while they are sitting on nearly two trillion dollars . If they paid a decent wage we could eliminate food stamps, get some people off welfare, jump start the economy have more taxable income, pay down the national debt, eventually run the government with a surplus. Explain why that's Obama's fault . Thanks.

It took GW EIGHT years to destroy the economy. You want Rome rebuilt in three years ?

I want to see the hope and change he promised. None of it coming to light. He is a screw up more than he is a helper. We need someone in there that knows what they are doing, because Obama sure as hell doesn't.

[Hawk]

And last, if we had three years of growth under obama, there wouldn't be 44 million people on food stamps. Unless the growth was nothing but low paying wal*mart jobs.

Think of the one percenters (the job creators with tax cuts who need more tax cuts ) while they are sitting on nearly two trillion dollars . If they paid a decent wage we could eliminate food stamps, get some people off welfare, jump start the economy have more taxable income, pay down the national debt, eventually run the government with a surplus. Explain why that's Obama's fault . Thanks.

It took GW EIGHT years to destroy the economy. You want Rome rebuilt in three years ?

I want to see the hope and change he promised. None of it coming to light. He is a screw up more than he is a helper. We need someone in there that knows what they are doing, because Obama sure as hell doesn't.

Thanks for the explanation... Of course I never expected any.

Rhetoric, that's all you guys can do. Think deeply about the question I posed then decide for yourself ON YOUR OWN why the 1% are hoarding trillions ? Why won't they let it trickle down as the Republicans have promised since Reagan ? Asking yourself why wages are going down so much people live in poverty while 2011 was the best year in history for their record making profits ? Asking yourself why they are doing so well if the economy sucks ?

[bassist_25]

Instead of rehashing the same shit for another 97 pages, let's talk about something that may have some effect on us as musicians: http://rockpage.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.ph ... 537#232537

[songsmith]

Obama's Depression.

Oh yeah, I forgot about there not being a financial meltdown BEFORE Obama. I remember the righties saying there were plenty of jobs, people were just lazy (of course many of them still say unemployed construction workers should go ahead and work at McDonald's). I remember rightwingers in September 2008 who said there was no recession, and gasoline was "still cheaper than bottled water." Net losses of 700,000 to a million jobs a month, but no recession.
Then the same people said we should get Obama out of office at any cost. They said it was morally wrong for the government to feed grandma's, but morally right for the government to give big breaks to big business. We can't pay our debts by making the people who get the most, give the most. We have to starve most to make some really rich, then those people will be nothing but benevolent to us.
Well, the governments smaller than it's been in decades. Taxes, though you hate the truth of it, are low. Executive salaries are at an all-time high, productivity is through the roof. It's an excellent time to be in the 1%, and you know it.
So why is there a Depression, and why isn't all that money trickling down?